Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 22:59:25 GMT -5
I just saw that he refused to talk to investigators. I have never been involved in an investigation of this kind, but that seemed very fucked up to me.
It seems to me an officer should have to explain why he shot. If he had anything like a reason that might seem remotely valid, you'd think he want to do so.
So, yeah, I'm no help. It seems all wrong to me, too.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 19, 2017 7:34:48 GMT -5
Give me a "reasonable reason" for Noor's silence, Vince. Make it good and once you've dreamed up one, be sure to send it airmail to her fiancee. That's actually pretty easy. The 5th amendment. He can refuse to incriminate himself. Legally, he refusal to do so shouldn't be seen as an admission of guilt. But it makes him look damn guilty. In the end, if he refuses and it goes to trial, and even if he's acquitted, the fact that he refused to give statements could and should be used to drum him out of the force. He may chose to give a statement once the criminal probe is behind him.
Most cops, if they had a very good reason for a shooting would want to tell their side. I don't know if his union allows him to hold off when criminal prosecution is in the air, but I would imagine it would. I can't see how he can maintain that, refusing to explain what happened, and still stay a cop even if there's no conviction.
This isn't a defense. It's simple legal protections.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 19, 2017 7:47:52 GMT -5
Legally, of course he can refuse to talk. The big question will then be what the police department and the DA's office decides to do about that.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 19, 2017 10:24:56 GMT -5
Well, if the evidence suggests a crime, which it seems to, and he won't give an account, the DA should charge him. Then a trial. He may get through the trial without ever speaking, and get an acquittal. Or he may give his testimony there. The idea from a legal standpoint is the less he tells his story, the less forewarning the prosecution has to poke holes in it. Also, if he tells it 3 or 4 times, you can look for inconsistencies.
Once that's done, if he's found not guilty, he then goes to a departmental review. He could be found in violation there.
An example not relevant here, a cop shoots a man attacking him with a knife. Justified. But the cop should have patted him down earlier, which would have avoided that moment.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 19, 2017 20:38:20 GMT -5
That's actually pretty easy. The 5th amendment. He can refuse to incriminate himself. Legally, he refusal to do so shouldn't be seen as an admission of guilt. But it makes him look damn guilty. In the end, if he refuses and it goes to trial, and even if he's acquitted, the fact that he refused to give statements could and should be used to drum him out of the force. He may chose to give a statement once the criminal probe is behind him.
Most cops, if they had a very good reason for a shooting would want to tell their side. I don't know if his union allows him to hold off when criminal prosecution is in the air, but I would imagine it would. I can't see how he can maintain that, refusing to explain what happened, and still stay a cop even if there's no conviction.
This isn't a defense. It's simple legal protections.
Sure it is. And it also makes Officer Noor look guilty as hell.Heh. Well, I guess if I were Officer Harrity, I wouldn't wait to get MY version of the events on the record. Partially because now it's his version which will make up the official version until Noor gives his, if indeed he ever does. But if he does and Noor tells a vastly different story, then it's gonna look like somebody's lying and between Harrity and Noor who's got more at risk here? The guy riding with his gun drawn and in his lap or the guy driving with his gun holstered who had he been leaning just a wee bit forward MIGHT have ended up catching the bullet that ended up in Damond's abdomen. Not saying anything might be a sound legal strategy. Especially when you know you're in a world of shit.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 19, 2017 20:42:05 GMT -5
That's actually pretty easy. The 5th amendment. He can refuse to incriminate himself. Legally, he refusal to do so shouldn't be seen as an admission of guilt. But it makes him look damn guilty. In the end, if he refuses and it goes to trial, and even if he's acquitted, the fact that he refused to give statements could and should be used to drum him out of the force. He may chose to give a statement once the criminal probe is behind him.
Most cops, if they had a very good reason for a shooting would want to tell their side. I don't know if his union allows him to hold off when criminal prosecution is in the air, but I would imagine it would. I can't see how he can maintain that, refusing to explain what happened, and still stay a cop even if there's no conviction.
This isn't a defense. It's simple legal protections.
From a legal perspective, it shouldn't. From a reality perspective, it does. Could we hear a narrative that explains it? Sure. But that seems less and less likely the more I do hear. Heh. Well, I guess if I were Officer Harrity, I wouldn't wait to get MY version of the events on the record. Partially because now it's his version which will make up the official version until Noor gives his, if indeed he ever does. But if he does and Noor tells a vastly different story, then it's gonna look like somebody's lying and between Harrity and Noor who's got more at risk here? The guy riding with his gun drawn and in his lap or the guy driving with his gun holstered and had he been leaning just a bit forward MIGHT have blocked the bullet that ended up in Damond's abdomen. Not saying anything might be a sound legal strategy. Especially when you know you're in a world of shit. If I were Harrity, I'd be talking.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 19, 2017 21:09:57 GMT -5
If I were Harrity, I'd be talking. If I were Noor, I'd be talking. Loudly. The first thing I'd say, "I'm sorry I killed Justine Damond. It was a horrible accident." Might not help. Probably wouldn't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jul 19, 2017 22:32:07 GMT -5
Now maybe one of the resident experts in law enforcement or the law itself can explain it to me, but how in the entire hell can a cop REFUSE to be inteviewed by investigators. I get it that there's a right against self-incrimination, but how can you say, "Maybe I shot her and maybe I didn't. I'm not talking" and the investigators have to just shrug it off and go back to their coffee and donuts? Why should a cop have more rights than a civilian? You can dummy up and lawyer up, but to simply stonewall an investigation because you don't want to talk about it stinks to high heaven. Give me a "reasonable reason" for Noor's silence, Vince. Make it good and once you've dreamed up one, be sure to send it airmail to her fiancee. That's actually pretty easy. The 5th amendment. He can refuse to incriminate himself. Really? Does the Fifth Amendment cover an internal-affairs investigation? This isn't criminal court - yet. I'm also not an expert, but it looks to me like the relevant part of it only applies in court. So, I'd think that one can't plead the Fifth in a workplace issue, even if it's one where a public servant, apparently unprovoked, shot and killed a civilian. Who does he think he is: a Congressman trying to pass a secret healthcare bill that will hang like a sword of Damocles over the life of every American? What the hell has happened to accountability and rule of law in America?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 20, 2017 6:07:00 GMT -5
Now maybe one of the resident experts in law enforcement or the law itself can explain it to me, but how in the entire hell can a cop REFUSE to be inteviewed by investigators. I get it that there's a right against self-incrimination, but how can you say, "Maybe I shot her and maybe I didn't. I'm not talking" and the investigators have to just shrug it off and go back to their coffee and donuts? Why should a cop have more rights than a civilian? You can dummy up and lawyer up, but to simply stonewall an investigation because you don't want to talk about it stinks to high heaven. Give me a "reasonable reason" for Noor's silence, Vince. Make it good and once you've dreamed up one, be sure to send it airmail to her fiancee. That's actually pretty easy. The 5th amendment. He can refuse to incriminate himself. Really? Does the Fifth Amendment cover an internal-affairs investigation? This isn't criminal court - yet. I'm also not an expert, but it looks to me like the relevant part of it only applies in court. So, I'd think that one can't plead the Fifth in a workplace issue, even if it's one where a public servant, apparently unprovoked, shot and killed a civilian. Who does he think he is: a Congressman trying to pass a secret healthcare bill that will hang like a sword of Damocles over the life of every American? What the hell has happened to accountability and rule of law in America? Rule of law is that while the Criminal case is pending and anything he says can be used against him, he has the right to not say anything. He'd be on modified assignment until it's all cleared up, or suspended with pay, maybe without, depending on the evidence they have. They can hold a hearing before the trial, but then they could and would face a lawsuit since he can't speak without fear of incrimination. Play it like this. They have a hearing, where they offer to have him give his side of the story He refuses and therefore they find against him he gives his side of the story on record for the first time during the trial The jury acquits. He then sues for his job because they knew he couldn't testify at the hearing under advice of council. Most times cops who make a good shooting want to tell their side of the story. Especially when the media is going with a narrative that you're a trigger happy cop. Often times, they'll be advised against it because even if they were in the right, and are truthful, if they tell the story a 2nd or 3rd time on record, details might change as memory does. Remembering more or less. A natural urge to embellish details that make your case better. None of this should be seen as a defense of this cop. While I'll try and remain open minded, what I do know is pretty damning.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 20, 2017 8:00:15 GMT -5
From nighttimer's link:
That is seriously effed up, imo. It'e even worse than the "in fear for my life" bullshit excuse used by cops who screw up.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I don't think I could be a cop. I don't think I could handle it. And really, I don't think I could be a fireman, either. As much as I have proven (to my own satisfaction) to be pretty good in emergencies, some even life or death, I don't think I could be the guy who runs into burning buildings, day in and day out. I'm also not the guy who can be in potentially dangerous situations, who has to deal with unknown factors all the time, who has to have the self control to not overreact, whip out a gun, and shoot someone.
We have a serious cop problem, imo. Guys like the two in this story aren't up to snuff. They're not good cops. They can't be, if they're actually peddling the above nonsense to excuse the inexcusable. And the same holds true for cops like Yanez.
Seriously, if the above is allowed, then every time cops respond to any call they can reasonably fear an ambush, right? I'd really like all such cops--ones who think this is okay--to quit today. The streets are safer with them off the job, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 20, 2017 9:44:14 GMT -5
What was their reasonable fear of an ambush based on? I mean, a reasonable fear has a reason behind it. It's right there in the word.
Right now, sounds like either paranoia or bullshit. Maybe a little of both
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 20, 2017 11:17:38 GMT -5
Um..yeah. This sounds like a post hoc story they concocted together after this happened. Reeks of bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 20, 2017 17:12:44 GMT -5
This really isn't an adequate comparison because it will become an international affair. If it had been a local white woman rather than an Australian citizen, then I think we'd be able to see a true comparison of how that city's local government and police department would react. This case will likely get a lot of media exposure (like the Castille case did) but the Aussie government will put the political screws to the US federal government, who will likely put that pressure on the local government, in order to get justice for their citizen. A local white citizen would not have an overseas government speaking up for them. So, yes, it'll be interesting to see what happens, but I don't think it can be used as a direct comparison for "black victim" versus "white victim" because the situations are so different (due to the involvement of the Aussie gov't). Um..yeah. This sounds like a post hoc story they concocted together after this happened. Reeks of bullshit. Yeah. There usually is the strong stench of bullshit hanging over these sort of shootings. It's just that some shootings become jmajor priorities where others remain forgotten trivilialities.
Charleena Lyles called the cops to report a thief. They arrived and they shot and killed her. Justine Damond called the cops twice to report a sexual assault. They arrived and they shot and killed her. The two situations are very different. Lyles refused police commands to drop a knife (at least according to their version of events) and had a history of serious mental health issues. But it did occur in no small part that sending men with guns to resolve these sort of situations is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps from your perspective the tragic ends of Charleena Lyles and Justine Damond don't connect in any way, but I see this all as a massive system failure. For far too long America has turned away from being a land of opportunity to a land where only a few get ahead and the many lag far behind. It's a lousy time for the middle and working classes, but a damn good one for the wealthy and only getting better. There are too many situations being turned over to the police to clean up because its no longer a priority for the rest of us. Give us a little tax cut, football on the weekends and lots of cheap drugs, powerful alcohol and toxic food and we'll shut up and be happy. A cop doesn't have the training, the skill set or the tools necessary to do all the shit jobs we demand they do, but they do it every day and most of the time they do it well for not a whole lot of money. But cop shops don't always have the most rigid of training standards and you're not always gonna get the Best and the Brightest for $50K a year. Too often the police take people who don't have what it takes to be a good cop. That's when you have nervous, scared, cocky, bigoted or just plain incompetent cops armed and a danger to anyone who makes them fear for their lives. So they end up taking lives instead. I don't believe Mohamed Noor should have ever been a cop and he has a LOT of company on that score.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jul 20, 2017 20:31:46 GMT -5
Rule of law is that while the Criminal case is pending and anything he says can be used against him, he has the right to not say anything. He'd be on modified assignment until it's all cleared up, or suspended with pay, maybe without, depending on the evidence they have. They can hold a hearing before the trial, but then they could and would face a lawsuit since he can't speak without fear of incrimination. Cite, please, for the rule of law statement? Has he been charged? I didn't think so. So there is no criminal case. Are we talking about the Fifth Amendment, or Miranda rights? If the cop hasn't yet been arrested or charged, there can't be a criminal case, hence no context for the Fifth Amendment or Miranda... right? Sure, it might well be in his interest not to talk, but I'm not sure that he's specifically got the shelter of the Fifth Amendment. And if a police officer can flatly refuse to participate in an internal investigation, there's the spectre of a diabolical precedent. How can a public officer wielding lethal firepower and a badge NOT be compelled to participate in the investigation?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 21, 2017 5:16:06 GMT -5
|
|